Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Photo editing programs: Lightroom, Luminar, Affinity Photo, Darktable, FastStone, ACSDSee and more

mauvais said:
If you're not doing it in Lightroom then you're doing it wrong. PS is almost redundant now.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to do it in Lightroom but it's just a resource hogging muthafucka that it's causing my machine to grind to a halt.

It's only importing files at the moment and is already up to nearly 2GB of RAM

del.jpg
 
Mine's using 171MB. In any case, 1.8GB isn't actually that unreasonable for serious photo work, especially cataloguing.
 
Are they all JPG or something? I've got 183GB over 33k files (25k photos).

Anyway if you want stupid resource usage you're not trying hard enough:

javavm.jpg


I put 12GB in that machine and it still ran out. I don't even know what it wanted.
 
Ugh. I can see where Ed is coming from now and I'm only importing 8000 photos. It's a dog, took at least an hour and a half.

Then, I copy 80 new photos in my picture folder, synchronise it and it's still bloody working on it 10 minutes later. Only 80 new photos. Urgh. There must be a quicker way.
 
I think I'm going to have to get a book to work out how to do this. Every time I put in a memory card, the great lumbering beast that it is Lightroom roars into life and I. Do. Not. Want. That.
 
Edit > Preferences > General tab > Untick 'Show import dialog when a memory card is detected'. Might be a Windows action too.
 
It seems to get stuck importing. This time on photo 59. I expect it'll take off again in a minute but in the meantime it's eating CPU like a CPU eating thing, which is not good when importing a paltry 80 pics.
 
Indeed v4 won't run on XP.
I'm a great fan of Lightroom, but it's a resource hogger - you need a decent PC - even if it did run on XP - on a 4 year old machine it's soooo slow as to be too painful.
 
Yeah - or you'll end up like this (below) - I had to upgrade too for the same reason.
Its annoying really - the FREE picasa is super quick even on any old machine, whereas this seems to need a super computer.
fractionMan said:
wow, it's actually unusable on my machine. stutters madly just zooming in and out.
Click to expand...
 
What should I use in the mean-time to play with (nikon) RAW files? I've got PS CS6 but don't have a scooby what plug in to use. That's why I was going to start using Lightroom.
 
I've just upgraded to 4.1. It's a bit slow on my laptop (still usable), but runs just fine on my desktop. I thought it might take ages to import the old catalogue (about 30,000 images, almost all RAW) but it did it in less than a minute. So far I'm liking the upgrade.
 
Any users out there?

It seems like quite a powerful program. And good value.

If I had Lightroom I am not sure I would need PhotoShop much - if at all.
 
I use Lightroom and really like it. And depending on what you want to do you might indeed find that you don't need PS. The best thing (for me) is that any editing you do is non-destructive, with the changes you make to the original file being stored in a database. You can always go back to the original whatever you do. There are plenty of things that PS can do that LR can't, but it might be that even then you don't need the full blown PS, but PS Elements might do instead.

Got any specific questions?
 
I dont like it. I want to like it, and despite trying for a good 3 years on various versions I keep going back to ACDSee. I find ACDsee quicker, less clunky and its file management makes far more sense.
 
RoyReed said:
..Got any specific questions?
Click to expand...

Hi RoyReed,

I was shown Lightroom last night and was impressed. I liked the actions like colour balance that you can do to a group of images at once, that it is non destructive, the shadow and highlights adjustments seemed very powerful. I liked the way you can attach key words into the exif info to more easily find images in your catalogue. The wide support for Raw, it copes with my Fuji S2 *.raf files for example.

I wondered why Adobe had created this as a seperate product as it seems to me it will only reduce purchases of PhotoShop.

Not sure about minimum system requirements. I only have a back catalogue of about 10,000 images because I ruthlessly delete. I suppose I could have multiple catalogues to keep their size down but the person who showed me Lightroom has a very uber pc, a very fast processor and multiple hard disks.
 
Oh and it can correct for the distortion of your particular lens! I have never felt the need to do this before. Not sure I will bother with it but it is a powerful feature ...
 
weltweit said:
I wondered why Adobe had created this as a seperate product as it seems to me it will only reduce purchases of PhotoShop.

Not sure about minimum system requirements. I only have a back catalogue of about 10,000 images because I ruthlessly delete. I suppose I could have multiple catalogues to keep their size down but the person who showed me Lightroom has a very uber pc, a very fast processor and multiple hard disks.
Click to expand...
I think Adobe see them as being complementary, with maybe Lightroom being more focused to photographers and Photoshop to designers who use photography - although there's obviously a very big overlap.

I use LR both on my desktop (quite powerful) and on my laptop - both accessing the same database. This currently has over 15,000 images in one catalogue. What is slower on the laptop (Win7 32bit 3.2G RAM) is editing and displaying RAW images at 1:1. It's still usable, but notably slower than my desktop PC. If you mainly use JPG images you might not even notice.
 
weltweit said:
Oh and it can correct for the distortion of your particular lens! I have never felt the need to do this before. Not sure I will bother with it but it is a powerful feature ...
Click to expand...
They have a database of most of the top Canon and Nikon lenses and quite a few for other makes. For these the correction is pretty good (and automatic if you turn the feature on). For lenses not in the database there's a set of manual controls that allow you to correct for various lens distortions (barrel, pincushion, vignetting, chromatic aberration) as well as vertical/horizontal architectural correction. Some people say that DXO is better for this, but Lightroom is still very good.
 
I wonder what the system requirements are for Lightroom 4 .... the guy that showed it to me has a very powerful computer with loads of RAM.

From adobe's Lightroom website

Windows
•Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® 64 processor
•Microsoft® Windows Vista or Windows 7 with Service Pack 1 or Windows 8
•2GB of RAM
•1GB of available hard-disk space
•1024x768 display
•DVD-ROM drive (if installing from DVD)
•Internet connection required for Internet-based services*
 
FunkyUK said:
I dont like it. I want to like it, and despite trying for a good 3 years on various versions I keep going back to ACDSee. I find ACDsee quicker, less clunky and its file management makes far more sense.
Click to expand...
That's exactly where I am. I want to like it. I know I should use it. But ACDSee just does the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Online photo storage recommendations?
Replies
12
Views
333
UnderOpenSky
UnderOpenSky
weltweit
Recommend me a good cloud photo backup
Replies
20
Views
302
weltweit
weltweit
stethoscope
Photo books (portraiture, landscapes, wildlife, social commentary, street)
Replies
10
Views
443
Fozzie Bear
Fozzie Bear
hiccup
Casio wrist camera photos on U75
Replies
4
Views
381
RoyReed
RoyReed
weltweit
Free software for editing photos?
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
neonwilderness
neonwilderness
Back
Top Bottom